4/3/2009

Omigod. This is just, like, so totally cool. OK, so like, Obama? He was at this, summit thing? The G-something? With all these world leaders? And he totally fixed this one huge argument that these two leaders? I forget their names? But anyway, they were having this totally lame argument about, something or other, and Obama fixed it all by changing one word.

The sticking point was whether to officially recognize a list of tax havens being published by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development as part of an attempt to crack down on those trying to escape taxes.

See? It sounds important. He’s always talking about important stuff.

The U.S. did not have a strong position on the question.

But Sarkozy insisted on recognizing the list. Hu opposed it . . .

Hu Jintao did, that’s Hu. OK, I’ll shut up.

. . . reasoning that G-20 members would have no role in formulating it.

Experts say it’s the kind of small dispute that holds up international agreements all the time.

I mean, that totally would have been the end of it. But then Obama stepped in.

“There was a great deal of back and forth,” the Obama administration official said, speaking about the private meeting on condition of anonymity.

I mean, that’s why I voted for this guy. He’s just, like, a genius. I think the L.A. Times can tell, too:

For anyone looking for clues in Obama’s first appearance as president on the world stage about his view of his role, it was an illustrative moment.

Yeah, they totally think he’s cool, too. Just like me. I think that’s why they’re doing so good. I love that paper.

Like, I bet Obama can make peace in the Middle East too. Like, maybe Hamas? Maybe they’re saying they don’t want to recognize Israel? But maybe Obama can just tell them: OK, so can you just “note” Israel? And I bet Hamas would be all, sure. “Noted.”

And then everybody would hug and nobody would kill each other any more. Just because of one word. You know?

I mean, I bet George Bush could have done that. I mean, if he wasn’t all arrogant and everything.

45 Responses to “Obama, Like, Totally Rocks. And Stuff.”

This is just, like, so totally cool. OK, so like, Obama? He was at this, summit thing? The G-something? With all these world leaders? And he totally fixed this one huge argument that these two leaders? I forget their names? But anyway, they were having this totally lame argument about, something or other, and Obama fixed it all by changing one word.

LOL Well done!
Patterico should do “valley-girl” more often. Esp when talking about lib newspapers who promote all kinds of economy-destroying and life-destroying practices. We could call the patois “valley-of-the-culture-of-death girl.”

We don’t get the LA Times in Seattle, but the Seattle Times, our last surviving ‘newspaper’, is in full fawning mode as well. Oh, it does so by quoting NYT and McClatchy reports, but they must be right, okay? Pravda-by-committee is flourishing, and the Great Leader is, well, awesome.

On the front page of the Chicago Tribune, by contrast – “FEDS WIDEN NET” and big pictures of Blago, his cronies, and his wife. I guess that, by contrast, “noting” banking havens wasn’t front-page news.

The problem here, I think, is self-love. If a person voted for Obama, it cannot be because he was the sortofkindof better choice between “two evils.”

On the other hand, LOTS of people voted for McCain while holding their noses. Like me.

Anyway, if you boarded the Obama Love Boat (eeewww), then you must continue to fawn and praise, even while the character hands the Queen of the UK an iPod packed with his own speeches. And that is increasingly just the tip of the iceberg: arrogance, incompetence, thoughtlessness, empty suitedness.

Basically, while he does things that the Obama voter would have at least cringed over if they had been done by GW Bush. Seriously, just change the names and party designations around, and ask: would the MSM or Obama voters been as forgiving of this kind of thing from GW Bush? Nope. That’s different.

Anyway, since the Obama voters are all cool ironic and hip and postracial, they couldn’t have made a mistake. Have chosen the “lesser of two evils.”

Thus, everything Obama does is fan-tas-tic. It has to be, or the voter was thoughtless and credulous. And that can’t be possible.

That LAT’s story reads almost exactly like a McClatchy story that Levin read on the air yesterday. That report attributed the story of Obama’s masterstroke to “unnamed” senior aides. The press takes dictation from Emmanuel and Axelrod. It’s that simple.

The truth is we’re coming out of this summit with very little to show for the effort. Who’s footing the bill for the trillion to the IMF? I mean the specific break down. Haven’t seen it. I think there’s a reason for that.

And what level of taxation gets you on the s*%t list with the G20 anyway? Nobody says. Tax havens are bad. High taxes are good. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Maybe the most impressive thing about this president, who is, of course, very smart, articulate and well-spoken, is just how cool he is.

Let’s hope Obama next speaks The Word to Kim Jong-il before he decides to tinker with any long-range ballistic missiles. How cool it would be to see Kim Jong & and Lee Myung-bak join hands across the DMZ.

Footsie, I understand your concern RE terror money. But, if I owned a company that did business inside and outside the Untied States of Anemia, I would likely find a way to get all my earnings outside the 2nd highest tax laws in the industrialized world, too.

(But I absolutely enjoy your style, footsie. (That fetish (massage) is very welcome from the right sort of people (female).))

Artistic Dana, those pumps are ugly. You shouldn’t be wearing them. And all baroque yo momma is going to do to the man named Kim (he had a stupid mother, didn’t he?) is tell him “I’m fixin’ ta turn off yer HBO and BHO fer a week if ya shoot yer boomer.”

The truth is we’re coming out of this summit with very little to show for the effort.

And for that, I’m immensely grateful. All of Europe told him basically to sod off regarding his attempts to hector them into bankrupting their country’s national debts even further than at present. So now he’s all alone on that island – no one else to point to as proof that his economic idiocies has adherents outside of his own political party.

Dear Leviticus: I think EVERY election is that way. It pleases me to hear you say that. In academia, you should hear the bone cracking limbo taking place as the standards shift to how we ought to judge Mr. Obama, compared to how we judged Mr. Bush.

I don’t see many newspapers or journalists with quite the man-crush on Republicans as I am seeing here. If Mr. Obama had done a fantastical job before running for President, and in his first few months, maybe I could understand it. But this is all sheer “progressive projection” as far as I can see.

For example, as many people have noted: Mr. Bush was eeeevvvviiiillll for “attorney-gate,” even though Mr. Clinton did that too. Yet Mr. Obama was speaking truth to power for firing the head of GM. It’s so hopeychangey different.

My point is, the same actions carried out by a person with an “R” after his name would be treated completely differently.

Folks, he can do better. He can bring peace to the middle east by changing ONE LETTER! How? Just change IraN to IraQ. Those guys are only onw letter apart. Now of course Iran would want IraQ to change to IraN, but a simple coin toss — by the charming Michelle! — will make that decision.

Well right, Mr. Hitchcock – me I can be sympathetic to the idea of tax havens but I just think that as president you would want to have a considered and definite position on the issue, especially in light of how we’ve pissed off the Swiss just last month. I just don’t get how we can not care one way or another if tax havens are recognized as such. International financey things are always an only as strong as the weakest link thing, you’d think.

What I mean is if I were a journalist telling this story I would feel like maybe I should explain why the U.S. doesn’t care about something what might be portrayed as trivial but which was a big enough deal to derail the photo op.

The whole thing feels very staged without an understanding of what the nature of the disagreement was. Cause what I think is if it were the U.S. position that this is of no consequence, then this represents a failure to advocate persuasively for our position, and this failure was one which potentially jeopardized a successful meeting at a critical time blah blah blah.

The whole thing feels very staged without an understanding of what the nature of the disagreement was. Cause what I think is if it were the U.S. position that this is of no consequence, then this represents a failure to advocate persuasively for our position, and this failure was one which potentially jeopardized a successful meeting at a critical time blah blah blah.

Woah, woah, woah, woah there, Tiger! Haven’t you gotten the message that it is irresponsible journalism to use the word “failure” anywhere near the word “Obama”? Unless of course the words “Republican” or “GOP” are even closer in proximity. If you don’t watch yourself we are going to have to send you to the reeducation camp run by the LA Times editorial board!

Basically, while he does things that the Obama voter would have at least cringed over if they had been done by GW Bush. Seriously, just change the names and party designations around, and ask: would the MSM or Obama voters been as forgiving of this kind of thing from GW Bush? Nope. That’s different.

Eric, I started keeping a list recently called “If Bush Did This.” It’s basically a tally of gaffes by Obama and his administration since the election, covering everything from major boners like the cabinet members and their tax problems to chickenshit that the left LOVED crucifying Bush over, like the 60 Minutes giggling episode. Given that the left jumped on every single thing Bush did, I’ve tried to adopt the same methodology, although I’m sure I’ve missed some things.

I haven’t even covered Biden’s gaffes or anything pre-election, and the list is already at 3 pages in a little over two months.

How are places where you can hide money to where you don’t have to pay taxes not pretty much the same places where you can hide money so you can finance terrorists and stuff?

There is another method of storing and transferring funds without the involvement of any institutions or banks of the modern world (which includes the G20 tax havens, which are part of the modern banking system).

It is called hawala. In this system, money-exchangers avoid electronic transactions, yet can transfer or hold funds across the world (the funds do not actually move, but to the client, the funds appear to move). It is quick, dependable, and invisible to the financial world. This is a preferred method of many terrorist organizations.

Oops, I wrote “terrorist organizations”. Apologies to the President, I meant “the organizations formally known as terrorist organizations”.